The MSM, which mostly (except for Fox) supports the Democratic Party, had been panning the Trump Tax reforms with all the usual Democratic talking abouts. You know, the tax cuts favor the rich and corporations; middle class will be screwed and the workers won't get any benefit etc. They have all been proven wrong. Or were they lying? I give them the benefit of a doubt that they are honest people. Thus it means they are stupid and illiterate in simple economics.

So let me help them and those in this forum who have been miseducated by the MSM.

Tax cuts for companies result in higher after-tax profits.

Higher profits means more investments both from new companies entering the market and expansion from existing companies.

More investments mean greater demand for workers.

More demand for workers means higher wages. Unless, of course, you increase supply will illegal immigrants.

Democrats, of course, want more illegals to come so that they can become new voters for their party someday.

Their policies of opposing the tax reform and encouraging illegals to come to their sanctuary cities screw the American worker.

Milo,
They don't contradict each other on facts; only the opinion derived is different. Here are my observations:

1)Hannity was careful to say that the State Dept partly approved the deal. But Hannity did not mention the other agencies who approved. Smith did and greatly diminished State's responsibility in the matter. Smith said the State Dept was represented by the Asst Secretary and speculated she might not be involved. So, did she give instructions to her Assistant Secretary to vote "yes"?

2)Hannity mentioned Bill Clinton received $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow from Russians connected to the deal. Smith did not.

3)Smith claimed that the donation to the Foundation was made years ago before Clinton became Secretary of State. Hannity did not mention this at all.

4)Hannity based his case partly on an article from the left-leaning New York Times (gasp). Smith made no mention of the Times article.

5)Smith said that US uranium cannot be exported, thus diminishing the value of uranium to Russia. Hannity made no mention of this.

It seems that anybody can cherry-pick facts to make a case. None of this proves her innocence or guilt. But there should be an investigation.

Milo,
They don't contradict each other on facts; only the opinion derived is different. Here are my observations:

1)Hannity was careful to say that the State Dept partly approved the deal. But Hannity did not mention the other agencies who approved. Smith did and greatly diminished State's responsibility in the matter. Smith said the State Dept was represented by the Asst Secretary and speculated she might not be involved. So, did she give instructions to her Assistant Secretary to vote "yes"?

2)Hannity mentioned Bill Clinton received $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow from Russians connected to the deal. Smith did not.

3)Smith claimed that the donation to the Foundation was made years ago before Clinton became Secretary of State. Hannity did not mention this at all.

4)Hannity based his case partly on an article from the left-leaning New York Times (gasp). Smith made no mention of the Times article.

5)Smith said that US uranium cannot be exported, thus diminishing the value of uranium to Russia. Hannity made no mention of this.

It seems that anybody can cherry-pick facts to make a case. None of this proves her innocence or guilt. But there should be an investigation.

Ah Cass Cass, what I showed is that Fox is no political monolith. That being suspect, so may many of your other assertions.

So let me help them and those in this forum who have been miseducated by the MSM.

Tax cuts for companies result in higher after-tax profits.

Higher profits means more investments both from new companies entering the market and expansion from existing companies.

More investments mean greater demand for workers.

More demand for workers means higher wages. Unless, of course, you increase supply will illegal immigrants.

Democrats, of course, want more illegals to come so that they can become new voters for their party someday.

Their policies of opposing the tax reform and encouraging illegals to come to their sanctuary cities screw the American worker.

Let me help you with some economics realities:

1. Higher profits do not mean more investment: most firms do not use their profits for investment, they just pay them out as dividend; when firms want to invest they go to their bank and ask for a loan; so, higher taxes do not mean less investment, except on what some foreign investment is concerned.

2. Therefore, lower taxes do not mean more demand for workers.

What you say is just a fairy tale to convince us that lower taxes are good for the economy. They are mostly good only to shareholders.

Milo,
They don't contradict each other on facts; only the opinion derived is different. Here are my observations:

1)Hannity was careful to say that the State Dept partly approved the deal. But Hannity did not mention the other agencies who approved. Smith did and greatly diminished State's responsibility in the matter. Smith said the State Dept was represented by the Asst Secretary and speculated she might not be involved. So, did she give instructions to her Assistant Secretary to vote "yes"?

2)Hannity mentioned Bill Clinton received $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow from Russians connected to the deal. Smith did not.

3)Smith claimed that the donation to the Foundation was made years ago before Clinton became Secretary of State. Hannity did not mention this at all.

4)Hannity based his case partly on an article from the left-leaning New York Times (gasp). Smith made no mention of the Times article.

5)Smith said that US uranium cannot be exported, thus diminishing the value of uranium to Russia. Hannity made no mention of this.

It seems that anybody can cherry-pick facts to make a case. None of this proves her innocence or guilt. But there should be an investigation.

Ah Cass Cass, what I showed is that Fox is no political monolith. That being suspect, so may many of your other assertions.

You are right that Fox is not a monolith. But the rest are nearly monolithically on the left. Fox seeks to be fair and balanced. So it allows different viewpoints. The others, however, are solidly leftist. If you don't believe me, take a look at this study by Harvard on news reporting on Trump.

As you can see, half of Fox news is negative on Trump, while the other half is positive. This is not so for the others. For example, 93% of CNN's Trump coverage is negative.

That surely depends on what they invest in. If it's automation then it usually means fewer workers are employed.

No, that is not true. Automation will in the long run also raise wages. You should not be like the Luddites who feared automation. They feared that the "Satanic Mills" will rob them of their jobs. Since those early days of the Industrial Revolution, more and more work has been automated. Yet wages and standard of living has risen.

So far, the result of the Trump tax cuts has been more investments announced and immediate raise in pay.

So let me help them and those in this forum who have been miseducated by the MSM.

Tax cuts for companies result in higher after-tax profits.

Higher profits means more investments both from new companies entering the market and expansion from existing companies.

More investments mean greater demand for workers.

More demand for workers means higher wages. Unless, of course, you increase supply will illegal immigrants.

Democrats, of course, want more illegals to come so that they can become new voters for their party someday.

Their policies of opposing the tax reform and encouraging illegals to come to their sanctuary cities screw the American worker.

Let me help you with some economics realities:

1. Higher profits do not mean more investment: most firms do not use their profits for investment, they just pay them out as dividend; when firms want to invest they go to their bank and ask for a loan; so, higher taxes do not mean less investment, except on what some foreign investment is concerned.

2. Therefore, lower taxes do not mean more demand for workers.

What you say is just a fairy tale to convince us that lower taxes are good for the economy. They are mostly good only to shareholders.

That's the Leftist idea that the MSM had been parroting and proven wrong by actual results. See the utube video I posted. A flurry of companies has announced pay rises for their workers after the tax cut.

sertorio,

You are so brainwashed by the Marxist ideology that even actual results in the real world cannot make you see the truth.

So let me help them and those in this forum who have been miseducated by the MSM.

Tax cuts for companies result in higher after-tax profits.

Higher profits means more investments both from new companies entering the market and expansion from existing companies.

More investments mean greater demand for workers.

More demand for workers means higher wages. Unless, of course, you increase supply will illegal immigrants.

Democrats, of course, want more illegals to come so that they can become new voters for their party someday.

Their policies of opposing the tax reform and encouraging illegals to come to their sanctuary cities screw the American worker.

Let me help you with some economics realities:

1. Higher profits do not mean more investment: most firms do not use their profits for investment, they just pay them out as dividend; when firms want to invest they go to their bank and ask for a loan; so, higher taxes do not mean less investment, except on what some foreign investment is concerned.

2. Therefore, lower taxes do not mean more demand for workers.

What you say is just a fairy tale to convince us that lower taxes are good for the economy. They are mostly good only to shareholders.

That's the Leftist idea that the MSM had been parroting and proven wrong by actual results. See the utube video I posted. A flurry of companies has announced pay rises for their workers after the tax cut.

sertorio,

You are so brainwashed by the Marxist ideology that even actual results in the real world cannot make you see the truth.

I did not dispute that firms paying less taxes may - may! - increase salaries. I disputed your statement that lower taxes meant higher investment. Nevertheless it is interesting to see that in the last few years higher productivity has not meant higher salaries, so one wonders why lower taxes would result in higher salaries seeing that both situations mean lower costs for the firms.